respectlifetoday

Conscience Rights Are Needed

3/16/2009 • Paula Glover

There's a saying about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That’s where Catholic heath care workers will be if the government overturns the conscience protection regulations that protect the rights of health care workers from participating in actions with which they disagree.

Forget the issue of abortion for a moment.

What about a worker being forced to participate in a death penalty execution? Say that the job becomes unpalatable for the doc that has been certifying the death of the inmate, or administering the drugs, and the prison system can’t find anyone else to do it. Will the government go to the local hospital and force someone to participate? Why not, if there’s no conscience protection?

As John Brethany, the executive director of the Catholic Medical As¬sociation points out, rhetoric over the abortion issue has obscured the reality that a court can demand that health care professionals "perform actions they believe to be evil."

I’m sure as science advances, there could be other forms of medical care, to use the term loosely, that we can’t envision that would be immoral by the standards of the Catholic Church.

This leaves a health care worker in a real bind – do what you are ordered to do and risk excommunication from their Church, or suffer the conse¬quences, which could be unemployment.

There are more than 2,000 mem¬bers of the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs, and this is a problem that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Another unintended consequence of the law could be that pro-life physicians and nurses leave the field. Where does this leave patients who would choose medical care from a pro-life professional, but can’t find one?

Rep. Chris Smith, NJ-4, a leader in the pro-life movement, said that "without long-standing conscience protection, the extremist abortion lobby will eventually turn every ob-gyn into an abortionist."

The conscience protection regulations, put in place in the last days of the Bush Administration, were written by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after receiving public comments and review. The regulations improve awareness and enforcement of existing laws and pro¬vide ways to redress wrongs against pro-life workers.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said on March 6 that a 30-day comment period has begun on the question of whether or not to override the regulations. The rules to submit a comment are fairly extensive, but those who want to pursue the comments, can go to the USCCB website, www.usccb.org and the proposal rule to rescind, as well as the requirements for comments.

Whether or not we are health care workers, or just consumers of health care, we need to stand up for the conscience protection rights of all U.S. citizens, or we’ll be wedged into be¬tween the same rock and hard place. Paula Glover is editor of The Monitor.

Step Backward In Stem Cell Research

3/16/2009 • Lois Rogers

For countless Americans with hopes pinned on the growing number of breakthroughs and advances with adult stem cells and iPS cells, last week’s reversal of policies must have come as particularly bitter bills.

The president not only lifted the ban on taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research but, in a peculiar and puzzling move, he also rescinded an executive order supporting adult stem cell research and research with iPS cells.

This comes at a time when breakthroughs in adult stem cell research and work with iPS cells – induced pluripotent stem cells– are making headlines every day around the world.

Go figure.

In a pro-life press conference that for once attracted the attention of the main stream media, Rep. Chris Smith, NJ-4, outlined those successes in what he referred to as "noncontroversial stem cell research" that have been, as he noted, well documented.

"For several years," Smith said, "significant progress has been achieved with adult stem cells derived from non-embryonic sources including umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, amniotic fluid, skin and even fat cells.

"Patients with diseases, including leukemia, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, sickle cell anemia and dozens of other maladies have significantly benefited from adult stem cell transfers," Smith said.

He talked about one of the newest and “greatest” of all breakthroughs, the aforementioned induced pluripotent stem cells which offer hope for cures using embryo-like cells without killing embryos.

"On Nov. 20, 2007, Japanese scientists Dr. Shinya Yamanaka and Wisconsin researcher Dr. James Thomson shocked the scientific community by independently announcing their ability to derive iPS cells by reprogramming regular skin cells," Smith told the press.

Unlike embryonic cells that kill the donor, are highly unstable, have the propensity to morph into tumors and are likely to be rejected by the patient unless strong anti-rejection medicines are administered, induced pluripotent stem cells have non of those deficiencies Smith said.

Indeed, Smith noted, scientists around the world are forecasting that these cells, not embryonic stem cells, are emerging as the future of regenerative medicine.

Smith cited these recent ex¬amples: on Nov. 21, Reuters reported that two separate teams of researchers announced they had transformed ordinary skin cells into batches of cells that look and act like embryonic cells but without using cloning technology and without making embryos.

The Associated Press and the New York Times also spotlighted reports of scientists turning human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic cells without having to make or destroy an embryo.

The "good news" as Smith called it keeps piling up.

Only last week, research teams from the United Kingdom and Canada announced they had successfully repro¬grammed ordinary skin cells into induced pluripotent skin cells.

Despite these ongoing advances, the federal move seems directed toward embryonic stem cells, which despite years of active research in American labs and labs the world over, has yet to produce any significant results, Smith noted.

That’s sad but true. I hate to think my tax money will go toward funding research I find so abhorrent. I also hate to think that money may be siphoned away from research that poses not one iota of ethical concern and is working.

That being the case, I’ll continue to e-mail President Obama with facts and figures and information on the successes of adult stem cell research and offer up prayers that he will get the message.

Anyone care to join me? Lois Rogers is features editor of The Monitor. She is available at lroger@dioceseoftrenton.org

President Obama Targets Embryos

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2781.html

Adult Stem Cells...A Positive Alternative to Destroying a Person in Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Non-embryonic stem cells offer best hope for patients

Most Americans know someone afflicted with an incurable medical condition. The possibility of stem cell "cures" has given hope to many who face such suffering and loss. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation about stem-cell therapies. To make sound decisions about this rapidly advancing field of research, it is important to understand what stem cells are and what promise they actually offer patients and their families.

How might stem cells help human patients? Stem cells may be medically useful for replacing tissue damaged by injury or disease. Following a heart attack, for example, many cells of the heart die and are not replaced, leaving the heart weakened and less able to pump blood. If replacement heart muscle cells could be produced from stem cells, these muscle cells could be used to repair the heart and restore normal heart function.

Three sources of stem cells

Stem cells are present in human tissues, including many adult tissues, at all stages of life. Yet stem cells from different sources have different properties, and in some cases, involve grave ethical problems.

The earliest stem cells are found in the human embryo during the first few days of life. These embryonic stem cells (or ESCs) can reproduce themselves indefinitely and are very flexible: they normally give rise to all of the tissues of the mature body. To obtain such embryonic stem cells for research and for possible future therapies, however, the embryo must be destroyed. This raises the critical ethical question of whether the life of one human being (albeit at a very early stage) can be sacrificed in order to advance scientific research or benefit the health of an older human being.

In contrast to ESCs, there are many sources of stem cells that do not raise ethical problems. Stem cells can be obtained from a patient's own bone marrow or other tissues, as well as from a variety of birth-associated tissues, including placenta, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord and umbilical cord blood. All of these non-embryonic sources of stem cells are commonly (and somewhat confusingly) referred to as "adult" stem cells, to distinguish them from stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos.

Thirdly, recent work has shown that stem cells can be produced easily and without controversy by introducing a small number of factors into ordinary adult skin cells.

In formulating a sound opinion about stem cell research, it is important to consider what kinds of stem cells are most likely to be useful for medical treatments and what kind of ethical boundaries we are willing to cross for the promise of medical cures.

The false promise of embryonic stem cells

Many people, including many scientists, claim that because ESCs can reproduce themselves indefinitely and, Non-embryonic stem cells offer best hope for patients because they naturally generate all the cells of the mature body, stem cells from embryos will be the most useful for medical treatments. Are ESCs really the best option for human therapies?

Quite apart from the grave ethical problem of destroying human embryos for research, there are significant, long-standing scientific problems with ESCs that must be overcome before they could be considered safe for use in human patients, which include tumor development, immune rejection and the fact the cells are unstable.

The real promise of "adult" stem cells

Stem cells can be derived from many of a patient's own tissues, including bone marrow, muscle tissue, nasal mucosa and even fat. While embryonic stem cells have been studied intensively for a quarter of a century, most types of stem cells from mature tissue have been discovered only recently. Consequently, we are just beginning to understand the properties of adult stem cells and to explore their current and future medical applications.

Many people, including many scientists, claim that adult stem cells will not be as useful for human medical therapies because these cells do not divide readily in the laboratory and they produce only a limited number of mature cell types. These claims have been discredited, however, by new data from the rapidly advancing area of adult stem cell research.

Stem cells from more mature tissues present significant advantages for use in medical therapies. First, stem cells from more mature tissues do not make tumors and are not genetically unstable. Because adult stem cells and their derivatives can be safely transplanted to patients, more than 1,500 clinical studies are currently underway, testing the medical usefulness of adult stem cells for diverse medical conditions, including (among others) diabetes, heart disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), multiple sclerosis (MS), arthritis, sickle cell disorder and many types of cancer. In contrast, in the quarter century since their discovery, not a single clinical study has been approved for ESCs, due to the serious safety concerns discussed above.

Also in contrast to embryonic stem cells, stem cells from more mature tissues can be immune-matched to patients relatively easily. Stem cells taken from a patient's own tissues are a perfect match. When it is not possible to obtain stem cells from the patient directly, donor registries, similar to the bone marrow registry, could provide a wide range of immune matches. Finally, with over four million births in the United States every year, stem cells from birth-associated tissues could provide immune matches for the great majority of American patients.

Lastly, while stem cells from mature tissue may be more limited in the kinds of mature cells they can produce, the flip-side of this "limitation" is that the cells produced are much more likely to be fully mature and therefore clinically safe and clinically useful.

Second practical conclusion: While "adult" stem cells have only recently been discovered, they have already proven themselves to be safe and clinically promising for a wide range of medical conditions. As citizens and as Christians who truly care about patients and their families, we need to ask ourselves: Why should money be diverted from stem cell research that is currently helping patients in favor of ethically and scientifically problematic embryonic stem cell research?

What price are we willing to pay for medical cures?

Serious hurdles must be overcome before embryonic stem cells can be used for medical treatments, and surmounting these hurdles is likely to take many decades and huge sums of money. Out of compassion for patients, we are obligated to focus our research spending on approaches that are most likely to result in relief of human suffering. On purely practical grounds, embryonic stem cell research is not the most effective use of research money, and does not offer the greatest hope to patients.

On a more fundamental level, we must not be so blinded by our concern for patients and their families that we ignore the moral cost of scientific research. Science and medicine, like all human endeavors, cannot be justified by the "good outcomes" they might produce, independent of the means by which those outcomes are obtained. Medical stem cell research must operate within the constraints of ethical principles, with the first principle being "do no harm." Research on human embryonic stem cells involves the intentional destruction of human life at its earliest and most vulnerable stage. Regardless of any potential benefit this research may offer, as citizens and as Christians, we must ask ourselves: Can medical cures justify the price of destroying human life? As former embryos, we should all stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are not yet capable of speaking for themselves on this question of vital importance to their future and our own.

Dr. Maureen L. Condic is a researcher and associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah School of Medicine. The article is provided by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for Respect Life Month.

Embryonic stem cells: Here we go again

When news broke July 6 that Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen's new proposal to have private investors – not taxpayers – fund stem cell research in New Jersey, it more or less sounded like embryos were off the lab table.

As written, the bill – introduced in the Assembly but not yet debated – would allow investors to contribute up to $500 million over five years to fund stem cell research on adult and umbilical stem cells.

That limited language sounded like it could be good news for so many people who strongly support adult stem cell research but oppose using human embryos on moral, philosophical and religious grounds.

Their optimism was abbreviated by a report in the July 7 edition of NJ BIZ indicating that funding for embryonic stem cell research could be part of Cohen's long range plan. That raised concerns from some of who worked hard to defeat the $450 million bonding plan last year.

Marie Tasy, executive director of NJ Right to Life and a group of Assembly members decided not to waste any time and reacted quickly to the NJ BIZ story with a strong statement. The legislators are Jay Webber, R-Morris & Passaic; Michael Doherty, R-Hunterdon & Warren; Michael Carroll, R-Morris; John Rooney, R-Bergen and Alison McHose, R-Sussex, Morris, Hunterdon.

The statement stressed that they will be on guard as details of the plan emerge. Count on a host of other folks to stand guard with them.

In her usual clear language, Tasy announced the vigilant mood: "We will urge opposition to this and any other stealth effort to circumvent the will of the people unless there is a guarantee expressly written into the legislation that this proposal shall never include funding for embryonic stem cell research,"Tasy said.

The new, "New Jersey Stem Cell Research Assistance Program," would include taxpayer indemnification for private investors when research institutions default on loans. It would also expand the authority of the Economic Development Authority and the Commission on Science and Technology.

As presently written, Tasy said, the proposal sets the "foundation to enact an end-run around the voters to fund embryonic stem cell research. The impractical, immoral and unsafe nature of embryonic stem cell research will ensure a default on loans, guaranteeing tax credits to the financial institutions, which, in turn, will be transferred onto the backs of the hard working citizens of New Jersey through higher taxes."

Several legislators who signed on with Tasy said they were heartened by indications that the state is paying more attention to adult stem cell research.

Webber said adult stem cells offer so much "encouraging and life-saving potential. I also remain opposed to any effort to put New Jersey on a path toward taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell experimentation which New Jersey voters wisely rejected last Fall."

Trenton lawmakers, he said, should not seek to achieve through the backdoor what they lost at the ballot box."

McHose, a staunch opponent of embryonic stem cell research echoed the concerns of Tasy and Webber that the plan will lead to taxpayer funding. "The NJ BIZ article speaks for itself by admitting that this could open the door to funding. The voters in 2007 said a loud and clear ‘NO' to using taxpayers dollars."

Dougherty directed his remarks toward the financial implications of the plan saying that "New Jersey is broke" and that the private sector should fund such research exclusive of taxpayer contributions and Carroll put both perspectives into perspective.

"It's both fiscally and morally irresponsible for government to be involved in trying to surreptitiously subsidize stem cell research that has never produced cures and involves the destruction of human embryos."

Lois Rogers is features editor of The Monitor. She is available at lroger@dioceseoftrenton.org